Doesn't the new testament bible talk about aquarius/ganymede. So to me the new testament is no better then the old testament like many liberal fluffy loving xtians proclaim think. I'm trying to research negative things about the new testament any help would be great:) One thing I found out while researching human sacrifice within christianity is that their is some evidence that the bible was edited to change the fact that Isaac was actually sacrificed.

Views: 569

Replies to This Discussion

The New Testament had plenty of stupid stuff in it, too.  Why get your morals from a document written by ignorant people, 2,000 years ago?  We can come up with much better morals ourselves.

Thanks for your help:) I just edited my comment again because of typos I agree with what you said:)

 

Oh, and if you want human sacrifice, Abraham and Isaac isn't the good part.  Try Judges Chapter 11.

Except the new testament Jesus wasn't "loving".  He was the one who first emphasized the idea of eternal hellfire.

"Doesn't the new testament bible talk about aquarius/ganymede."

I don't know what you're referring to.

There are numerous passages where he comes across as a complete dick. He routinely insults his own disciples. He makes a woman beg and agree to become one of his followers before healing her child. He curses and kills a fig tree for not yielding fruit out of season. He asks non-believers be brought before him so they can be put to death. And on and on. Loving, my ass.

So, George, you are right.

Well, since Abraham and Isaac are most likely mythical, I don't think there is any reason to think Isaac was OR was not sacrificed. On the other hand, child sacrifice has occurred in many cultures, including the Inca culture in Peru, not just the old Hebrew one. In fact, there are parts of the Hebrew scriptures that condemn child sacrifice.

You have to read it for what it is -- a library of a people whose writings spanned many centuries, and whose mythology, traditions and culture changed during that period (and is still changing). Nothing is static, and it's wrong to assume that religious literature is, either.

You don't need to get your morals from anywhere - we are born with morals.... :)

This isn't really true.  Humans are born with a basic moral sense, but one's morality (or lack of it) is built and reinforced by the surrounding culture.

Combination of Nature and Nurture, I guess you could say.

But there's also an inborn morality that isn't there at birth but develops naturally, as the brain ages and the person develops a sense of self and an anthropic sense.  As a child realizes that other children are people, just like him, most will develop a sense of empathy that leads to basic moral behavior.

sure......  that is culturally passed on also.....  with manners etc.....

Hi George, I am really curious about this morality thing.  I hadn't thought much about it until the last couple of years, since I've been online talking with Americans.  It is an American obsession, that hasn't come up in my 35 years of living in the UK and Australia - both countries don't really seem to give a crap about morals - in fact it's more the opposite, morals are for weirdos - who like prosthelytizing and banging on about what's right and wrong according to them - and for some reason everyone else has to go along with their trip.

I saw a show somewhere the other day about babies who get upset when a soft toy doesn't share, and become surprised when one toy seems to move groups to help an 'enemy' toy to take from one of his own group.  It was I think about 7 in 10 that reacted this way - others were either distracted or psychopaths perhaps :).

This is in 14 month old babies.  So obviously the do not steal is in there early.  Also the sharing thing is important.  So most of us are born with this innate sense of sharing and fairness.

I don't believe that there is a right way to be moral.  I think that all humans learn according to their environment what works and what doesn't.  And of course we all have our needs that need meeting, and if someone else doesn't meet them then we need to work out a way to meet them ourselves.  And if others don't help us when we are children, to meet our needs then this leads to much anger and resentment later on.  The cause and effect here is natural.

The bottom line is that we have needs.  We all have pretty similar needs.  And those needs need meeting.  Morals are just a way to make sure that everyone gets a fair go at getting their needs met, because as humans we need the group to survive and get our needs met, so it makes sense that the groups needs met is our individual needs met - and fairness is important.

I think that American culture is particularly competitive - and people can often end in a competition about how my morals are better than yours - how completely ridiculous and totally missing the point - isn't the point that we help those in our group - or is it that we only compete with those we consider outside of our group?  If people were more loved and secure there wouldn't be the competition - as everyone would have their needs met.

I agree Alice, as an Aussie living in the US, I too have not had to justify my 'morals' so much as I have here. Humans are human and we will do whatever we think is right in our own minds whether it be right or wrong in the minds of others. As long as we are law abiding citizens. regardless of our beliefs, we are doing ok.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service